Countries have come to Doha unprepared to make the necessary commitments to actually stay below two degrees.

"There have been a number of voices suggesting (that) keeping temperatures below two degrees C is not possible. That simply isn't true. It is perfectly feasible," said Schaeffer.

Yes, but:

countries are going in the wrong direction, spending 523 billion dollars in 2011 in public tax money to subsidise the burning of fossil fuels, said Michiel Schaeffer, a scientist with Climate Analytics that produces the Climate Action Tracker (CAT) with Dutch energy consulting organisation Ecofys and Germany's Pik Potsdam Institute.

"The 2011 subsidies for fossil fuels were a 30-percent increase over 2010, according to the IEA (International Energy Agency)," Schaeffer told IPS.

By contrast, the IEA said that solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy received only 88 billion dollars in subsidies, one-sixth of the amount given to the highly profitable fossil fuels sector.

Even though 194 states and the European Union are here at COP18 to ensure the heating of the planet stays below two degrees, they are not discussing how to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuels.

So subsidies to fossil fuels rose by a freaking 30% between 2010 and 2011. And renewables, that we incessantly hear are hopelessly expensive and subsidised, get one-sixth of the amount fossil fuels get. Are we getting round to understanding that the propaganda effort by incumbent energy industries is not only real but it is working?

Laurent Delahousse, news anchor on public TV channel France 2, asks the Minister of Education if François Hollande can now be called a "reformist social-democrat". Le Monde's Elysée correspondent Arnaud Leparmentier congratulates Hollande on being "social-liberal" (liberal in the economic sense, not as used in the US) and says "No, it's not a dirty word". Pundit Françoise Fressoz, in the same newspaper, writes that at last Hollande is taking it on himself to be "Hollandist", which she seems to define as being a social-democrat who will do supply-side stimulus. Michel Rocard says a signal has been sent to private enterprise, and about time too.

Though many of us might call Hollande's party "social-democrat", it defines itself as socialist. "Social-democrat", in current French political jargon, means pretty much "Gerhard Schröder". So there seems to be consensus in the political microcosm that Hollande is going Schröder's Way (aka Third).

There was a mammoth presser the other day at the Elysée (two and a half hours, four hundred journalists present), in which Hollande laid out the three pillars of his policy: a new direction for Europe, a forced march towards deficit reduction, and competitiveness.

The new "orientation" for Europe means solidarity, not austerity, says Hollande. To a considerable extent it looks as though he thinks most of that was achieved at the June summit, the one Germany back-pedalled from afterwards. Otherwise, this rather incantatory new direction is likely, in my view, to be invoked to validate any palliative measures that make the hurt just a bit less painful.

Because accepting the double German demand -- deficit reduction (along with the so-called golden rule) and competitiveness -- has nothing to do with solidarity and everything with austerity. And Hollande more than accepts both, he claims them as guiding principles.

The Imperial College, London, report that demolished fantasy forecasts for the UK of massive balancing needs supplied by use of Open Cycle Gas Turbines (OCGT), led to some discussion concerning the importance to the system of Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGT). (See UK Wind Power "Debate" : Latest). Ernst & Young (commissioned by Spanish and Portuguese energy companies Acciona and EdP), have brought out a report throwing new light on the comparison between wind turbines and CCGTs, for the EU27 and for specific European countries.

Wind technology was selected as the reference renewable energy source in this study and is compared here to Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT). This is based on the idea that natural gas is progressively becoming a significant source of electricity generation due to lower CO2 emissions compared to other fossil fuels and to its price competitiveness. The analysis presented in this report could be extended to other renewable or conventional energy sources.

The present study provides insight on a number of costs and benefits of renewable energy policy measures, which are currently not systematically taken into account in the decision-making process:

Several existing studies have analysed the respective Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of these two technologies but did not include a comprehensive analysis of their additional economic costs or benefits.

In other words, comparisons based on the levelized cost, expressed in  per MWh over the estimated lifetime of the capital investment, do not take into account positive and negative externalities that the report proposes to quantify.

What's at issue is how much wind generation capacity should be brought into the energy mix in view of the UK's renewables targets for 2020, and what the economic effects of an increasing share for wind would be. Britain has the largest wind resource in Europe, yet policy has veered wildly from planning for a very considerable wind build-out to outright discouragement.

The deceptively-named Global Warming Policy Foundation (often mentioned on ET, try here and here) think-tanks on climate change (obfuscation), renewable energy (opposition), and conventional energy sources (support). In this case, the Imperial College team (from the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology plus the Business School, and help from the Department of Electrical Engineering) refute the main planks of the GWPF's testimony before the Committee, and in passing present some interesting arguments and new research data.

Not that OECD releases are spectacular, but four in a row today are reading from the same music.

G20 GDP growth slows to 0.6% in the second quarter of 2012

Quarterly Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in the G20 area slowed to 0.6% in the second quarter of 2012 compared with 0.7% in the first quarter. This marks the third consecutive quarter of slowing growth in the G20 area but masks diverging patterns across economies.
Growth accelerated in the second quarter of 2012 in Brazil (to 0.4% compared with 0.1% in the previous quarter), China (from 1.6% to 1.8%), Indonesia (from 1.4% to 1.6%), South Africa (from 0.7% to 0.8%), and Turkey (from minus 0.1% to 1.8%).
Growth slowed strongly in Australia (to 0.6% compared with 1.4%), in Japan (0.2% compared with 1.3%) and in Korea (to 0.3% compared with 0.9%).
Growth decelerated more moderately in Germany, India, Mexico, and the United States while in Canada and France growth rates were unchanged from the previous quarter.
GDP contracted for the third consecutive quarter in the United Kingdom and for the fourth consecutive quarter in Italy. GDP also contracted by 0.1% in the European Union as a whole, and by 0.2% in the euro area.

Quarterly GDP in volume terms for the G20Percentage change on the previous quarter, seasonally adjusted data

OK, the flight wasn't arranged for me, and it was by chance that I happened by earlier this evening just as a friend dropped by with his new hot-air balloon. So there was no room for me in the nacelle, but it was impressive watching the set-up and lift-off.

At Melanchthon's instigation, I've translated a tribune by French (ex-PS went by EELV now without party label) politician and researcher Pierre Larrouturou. The piece was in Monday's Le Monde. As this is an appeal for support for the Roosevelt 2012 Collective (of which Larrouturou is a founder), I'm hoping there'll be no copyright problems - particularly as I'll offer the translation to the Collective.

Systems often hold on longer than we might think, but they end up collapsing much faster than we imagine." In a few words, the former chief economist of the IMF, Kenneth Rogoff, gives a good summary of the situation of the global economy. As for the Governor of the Bank of England, he says "the next crisis is likely to be worse than 1930" ...

The euro area is in poor health, but the United States and China, often presented as the twin engines of the global economy, are actually two time bombs: the total debt of the United States has reached 358% of gross domestic product (GDP); the Chinese housing bubble, almost three times larger than it was in the U.S. before the subprime crisis, is beginning to burst.

Given the international context, how can the (French) PS and the UMP go on gambling on the return of growth? There isn't one chance in a thousand for this dream to become reality. "It will be terrible," a socialist leader confided to me recently. "There will be no leeway. As soon as June, we will freeze spending. In a few months the country will be paralyzed by mass demonstrations and, in 2014, we will take an historic beating in the elections."

Is austerity the only solution? Is the left in power condemned to let everyone down? No. History shows it is possible to get out of the "death spiral" which our countries are now shutting themselves into.

Not that there was ever much doubt. Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in 2007 thanks to posturing as the xenophobic hard man of the moment, siphoning part of the Front National's electorate and winning with the support of the over-65s. He promised to clean up the cités (sink estates, housing projects) with a pressure hose. His administration and its mouthpieces proceeded to continue with the talk and the gesticulation, stigmatising youth, immigrants, and Muslims, which alienated part of centrist opinion while being insufficient to guarantee the loyalty of the extreme right. French contributors to ET have said this again and again: every time Sarko pandered to that electorate, he was working for the Front National.

Now it's payback time. He is forced to run to the right to have any chance of winning, and so has raised the xenophobia and anti-Muslim bidding (halal, Schengen, etc), the effect of which keeps him out of the centre where a good proportion of voters are not scared of Hollande. He has never been more frantic in his jumping from one lead to another (from the far right to ludicrous attempts to curry favour in the centre by letting it be known he would consider François Bayrou as Prime Minister, to the silly talk slapped down by Germany about how growth should be part of the ECB's remit) and in dramatising the stakes: the end of the world as we know it if Hollande wins; channeling John-Paul II with the repeated injunction "Do not be afraid" at the mass rally on Sunday... Twitching, gesticulating, in a genuine danse macabre... Because he's going to lose.

Monetarism, Austrianism, Austerianism, Austeritarianism, gold-buggery... The terms have not been lacking on this forum to attempt description of the mindset obdurately (and increasingly apparently parochially) shared by a majority of German economists, central bankers, and political personnel. Just recently, the word "ordoliberalism" has made its entry. What follows is an attempt to pull on a few threads and find out more about what ordoliberalism means and where it comes from.

...there is more to Germany's distinctive approach to the euro crisis than the much-discussed historical experience of the hyperinflation in the Weimar Republic on the one hand and simple national interest on the other. Rather, there is an ideological edifice behind German economic orthodoxy with which Germany's partners must engage. While a change in the government after the next general election, in 2013, would lead to a change in German economic policy, it is unlikely to dramatically change the country's approach to the euro crisis.

Dullien and Guérot point to the post-WWII economic history of Germany, and to an influential school of economic thought called ordoliberalism:

While ordoliberalism nowadays is no longer an important academic current in Germany, most economists have at some point in their career been influenced by ordoliberalist ideas. Conversely, unlike in other European countries and the United States, there are very few influential Keynesian economists in Germany.

Libération publishes an internal note dated 24th February that Daniel Cohn-Bendit sent to Europe-Ecologie-les Verts (EELV) (a French movement he belongs to and was instrumental in starting up), in which he slaps EELV around, not because the presidential candidate, Eva Joly, is not the right one (he's already abundantly said that) but because of the decision of the three Green deputies to vote against the ESM ratification in the Assemblée Nationale.

What he says is that he is touched by the number of requests for him to support EELV candidates in the legislative elections that will follow the presidential, but that he intends to say what he thinks, so caveat emptor. And the main reason:

The recent positions against the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which enables, for the first time, to bring practical assistance to countries in the euro area which cannot borrow, appalled me. Instead of proposing a reasoned position, the EE representatives base their action indiscriminately in the slogan "No gifts for Sarkozy" to the point of not even knowing any more what they're doing. If tomorrow, Sarkozy were to copy his idol "Angie Merkel" in deciding to close five nuclear reactors, it would be in good taste for the left to oppose it! It's just ridiculous!!

Over the last two weeks, the not-yet candidate whose candidature is supported by Angela Merkel, has nailed his colours to the mast: hard over to the right. First act, two Sundays ago with his six-channel TV spectacular, he announced that France would adopt the policies that have done so well for Germany, including an increase in VAT of 1.6% and the usual "necessary reforms" (in other words, reduce labour costs). Now, to appear in the magazine of the UMP's house newspaper, Le Figaro, he comes out with more bold plans: he will hold a referendum on the questions of whether foreigners should be more easily thrown out of the country or not, and whether the long-term unemployed should be forced into training and/or work, or not.

Media peddling of received wisdom likes to dwell on the Economy to Emulate du jour. Seeriouss People™ are reported or filmed saying they've crunched the numbers or just returned from a visit to such and such a place, and my word they're impressed. Journalists repeat the puffwords "successful, vibrant, surging, stellar, GDP growth, full employment..." In the 1980s, in the French media at least, it was Japan. Then Japan hit a rock and has since gone off the radar. In the Blair years, it was the UKEngland London. No more now. For long it was the "insolent good health" of the American economy, just when that economy was rotten to the core. Don't hear that any more. These days it's Germany.

So Nicolas Sarkozy went on six French TV channels last Sunday, with much pomp and obsequious journalists asking predetermined questions, to say he was going to make France imitate Germany. Raise VAT, reduce employers' payroll contributions, put an end to the 35-hour working week, weaken collective bargaining even more than in Germany with enterprise-by-enterprise renegotiation of hours and pay (more of one and less of the other). As usual with Sarko, it was smoke and mirrors, since he was announcing as decisions on his part measures that would be applied after the presidential elections... when he stands a good chance of being an ex-president, and the measures of not being applied. But, through the smoke, it's an image that he wants to project of the tough guy telling it like it is, and "like it is" is TINA - Germany is right, we have no choice but to copy the Germans.

If anyone wonders why any other eurozone country, France in this case, should want to copy Germany, Sarkozian smoke billows. Too much emphasis on German exports might sail close to the dangerous waters of the effect of those exports on the eurozone. So it's the success of the German economy - GDP growth, full employment - that is touted.

We believe the President of the European Commission who holds significant powers in the European Union should be directly elected by the people of Europe.

A directly elected president would make the EU more accountable to ordinary Europeans and allow us to choose the direction policies take. At the moment, aside from decisions originated by the European Parliament, we have policies forced on us by Brussels. Shouldn't we choose who makes those policies?

Electing a President of the EU Commission does not mean giving more power to Brussels. It means the opposite: making Europe more accountable, transparent and forcing bureaucrats in Brussels to go to the people.

Electing a President of the EU Commission would also mean that European citizens take the time to decide together on what direction they want Europe to follow.

At its most basic, it is the ability to take our own decisions. We passionately believe this would be a victory for democracy and that a legitimate President would give Europe the leadership it needs.

Well, yeah... There's no doubt there's a huge democracy gap in the EU, and electing the EC president would be one move towards filling it. But I can't help feeling there are a couple of misconceptions here.

April-May have been suggested as a better time of year for the main Paris meet-up. Here again is a comment I made listing the possible weekends:

OK, practically, weekends in:

April 2012

7-8 is Easter (Monday = Bank holiday)

14-15 looks quiet

21-22 first round, presidential election

28-29 probably quiet but the Tuesday is 1st May (BH)

May 2012

5-6 second round of elections, the Tuesday is 1945 Armistice BH

12-13 looks quiet

19-20 part of Ascension Thursday (BH) long weekend

26-27 Whit, the Monday is BH

The fact of being part of a long weekend (ie tied on to a Bank holiday) could mean more French visitors to Paris, though the last two weekends there are probably the biggest. Elections are not really an obstacle.

I don't think we should count on these dates being out of the tourist season, this now seems much longer than it used to be, as looking for hotel rooms in October showed us.

I'm going to suggest the 12-13 May weekend, which means the main meet-up on Saturday 12th.

Over to you.

UPDATE If we want this to happen in April-May, we should perhaps get ahead with a decision. May 12 fits for a number of people, but not all - April 28 is another possibility. Please pile back in with your thinking on dates.

RE-UPDATE 15 Jan 2012 Even split down there in the poll, and we should reach a decision soon if we want to get reasonable travel and accommodation prices. Migeru has given a good reason for his choice (a long weekend over the April 28 date, which makes it easier for him to attend), so, though I voted "No preference" I'm going to come down on that side. Whadda you say?

So you really want to understand the seemingly endless flow of scandals, affairs, accusations, prosecutions, libel suits, counter-accusations and yet more scandals currently to be seen in French politics? You want to know what Bourgi has to do with Bettencourt has to do with Villepin has to do with Takieddine has to do with senile Chirac has to do with Karachi has to do with Juppé has to do with Clearstream has to do with Prévost-Desprez has to do with Helen of Yugoslavia has to do with Bazire the Bizare has to do with Tibéri, Sarkozy, Pasqua, Copé, Courroye (continue ad lib)..?

You do?

<sigh> Well... The presidential elections, around which French politics revolves, are coming up, so there are lots of stink bombs, banana skins, smoke screens, and firecrackers vying for media attention.

Not enough?

But it happens to be true. Just as it's true this is mostly about election campaign funding sleaze and a brown envelope / document case tradition on the right, for whom the constitution of the Sith Republic was written ("Sith" (sic), should be 5th) in 1958, and who therefore consider they're at home in power and can do as they like.

That's all very well, I hear some of you (no names) grumble, but we want the skinny, the lowdown, the dirt. OK, but don't blame me if you understand even less of it at the end than before you started. So now let's go back to the 1960s. (You asked for it).

Quiz: In what year was this said by the boss of a major tobacco company in testimony under oath before a US House of Representatives committee?

I believe that nicotine is not addictive... Nicotine is a very important constituent in the cigarette smoke for taste.

I'd have thought this was the kind of line cigarette manufacturors were pushing in the 1960s, maybe into the 1970s, when people's ideas on the subject were still hazy (pun intended). But - to my surprise - it's a statement from just seventeen years ago, in 1994 (at the "Waxman Hearings" on tobacco and public health).

Six other tobacco CEOs made similar statements that day. It was probably a bridge too far, because public awareness had gone beyond being taken in. And the following year a whistle-blower, Jeffrey Wigand, former head of R&D at Brown & Williamson (then a wholly-owned subsidiary of British American Tobacco), made the industry's game plain in an astonishing deposition (harassed by a flock of tobacco lawyers). Tobacco companies knew that nicotine was addictive and made deliberate use of the fact to sell the product. Tar was reduced (permitting marketing of a low-tar cigarette) while maintaining nicotine levels that ensured addiction, by blending different tobacco types, adding ammonia to "free up" nicotine molecules, and using an impact booster:

I was visiting In Wales in Wales last week. Time to see places I haven't seen in a long time, like considerably-changed Cardiff, greatly-changed Valleys (last time I was there the pits were still open and the slag-heaps were black), or relatively unchanged popular beach resort Porthcawl.

The weather was typically Welsh, sun every day (with just a shower on the Brecon Beacons, duh).

OK, losers, don't you think people have had enough of hearing this obsessive fearmongering news talk about Fukushima? There's a general feeling that it's time to move on. Let's get back to normal and deal with life's real everyday problems. Another blonde white girl was kidnapped. And you still haven't worked your butt off to get that car that exactly expresses your personality and your precise status slot on the social ladder (take our poll).